Colleen Campbell - Reflective Questions for Kegan's Orders of Consciousness

There is a lot in Kegan’s work that resonates with me. I feel that I have long understood the concepts of subject and object but have not been able to articulate them. Much of my personal learning comes from situations in which I have been challenged and have not easily overcome that obstacle or tension. In these times, I have turned to self-reflection and frequently shared those reflections with my friends and mentors. I realize, too, that I have used holding environments that I have constructed and that were already in place.

I think it’s important to emphasize the self-authorship side of Kegan’s theory, and to understand that this process is never resolved. Often, the way in which we conceive of ourselves as object is not accepted by others, or appears different from the subject that others may see. Our self-authorship can be jarring and emotional. I was reminded of this after watching a Soul Pancake video (which, if you’ve never seen any, you should definitely watch) in which two strangers sit in a sandbox together and answer questions about what they wish they knew when they were younger. These individuals share the events that shaped their development, and explain how they orient themselves toward the world. These individuals have encountered an environment that is conducive to reflection, and for some this stirs emotion, and for others, it is an opportunity to consider their concept of self.

This prompts me to think more about how we, as student affairs professionals, can shape environments to be appropriately challenging and supportive. This can be a difficult balance to strike. I also wonder how to assess how to determine if a student has sufficiently built a bridge between stages. In my work with students, it has sometimes been hard to know how much to push a student, and to have them willingly participate in meaning-making activities. In the times that I have transitioned between stages, I find that it is often through experiences in which I was not a passive actor; I stepped into the role or situation, typically not knowing what to expect.

I can recall two distinct situations where I have shifted my conception of a situation from subject to object. The first of these experiences came when I joined the Program on Intergroup Relations (IGR) and began training as a facilitator. IGR was “effective in creating [an environment] where challenge and support [were] blended to foster students’ growth” (Love & Guthrie, 1999, p. 74). This experience made me reorient myself toward my social identities and made me actively experience them in relation to others.

I also recall another experience during my sophomore year of college. I was fencing at Club National Championships and was asked to be the captain of my squad, which was comprised of two seniors. This sudden responsibility over older peers was jarring; instead of only being responsible for myself (and my performance), I was responsible for theirs as well. I fenced poorly on the first day of the tournament and felt as if I had let the entire team down. That evening, I spent time by myself, reflecting on my role on the team and my new responsibilities. I fenced better the next day and felt like I was a more effective leader for my teammates.

These shifts occurred at times when my life curriculum challenged my orientation toward myself. With the informational knowledge that I gained in IGR, I could not continue to understand my identities as a subject. Rather, they became object, something that I can “reflect on, handle, look at, be responsible for, relate to each other, take control of, internalize, assimilate, or otherwise act upon,” as defined by Kegan (as cited in Love & Guthrie, 1999, p. 66). A similar shift happened during the fencing tournament, but the process of assimilation had to occur more quickly. Instead of understanding myself as a good fencer, I instead had to take on the role of leader, and separate both from my sense of self so that I could be an effective captain.

 These transformations can be jarring. Both of these experiences led me to reconsider how I orient myself toward the world, and toward my understanding of myself. In their book Dialogue Across Difference, Gurin, Nagda, and Zúñiga (2013) describe “active processing,” which “refers to the complex cognitive processes through which students ultimately create meaning from new information and experiences” (p. 233). In active processing, there is some cognitive dissonance, in which students cannot reconcile the things that they experience with their current mindset. I feel like this happens frequently when we perceive a tension between subject and object.

Additional Sources:

Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and research on intergroup dialogue. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Soul Pancake (2013, September 23). Two strangers in a sandbox: Lessons for life. Retrieved on January 26, 2014 from http://youtu.be/vWiVDEtdkeI.

Required Readings:

Love, P. G. & Guthrie, V. L. (1999). Kegan’s orders of consciousness. In P. G. Love and V. L. Guthrie (Eds.), Understanding and applying cognitive development theory. New Directions for Student Services, no. 88 (pp. 65-76). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Kegan, R. (2000). What “form” transforms? A constructive-developmental approach to transformative learning. In J. Mezirow and Associates, Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 35-69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. & King, P. M. (2012). Nudging minds to life: Self-authorship as a foundation for learning.  Assessing meaning making and self-authorship: theory, research, and application.  ASHE Higher Education Report, 38(3), 1-19. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Complex lives. In M. B. Baxter Magolda, Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development (pp. 3-36). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing

Baxter Magolda, M. B., & Crosby, P. C. (2011). Preparing students and graduates to navigate life’s challenges: A dialogue on self-authorship and the quest for balance of agency and communion. Journal of College & Character, 12(3), 1-11.